Discuss Gamelyn's motivations for his actions. How does he set about retrieving what is rightfully his? And does the conclusion of the story compromise Gamelyn's actions throughout?
Discuss Gamelyn's (mis)treatment of the clergy? How does this affect our interpretation of any religious allegory that may be found in the lay?
Consider the legal issues at the heart of this romance. Is there any political message to be taken?
Is Gamelyn a likeable (anti)hero?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think that the conclusion of the story is a bit of a damp squib that if not compromises, at least detracts from Gamelyn's previous actions. He doesn't gain his lands because they're rightfully his, but because the king took a shining to him and gave them to him. It doesn't seem like a particularly fitting ending to a poem about fighting for your rights and for justice when the law won't because Gamelyn's actions - murdering the clergy who shunned him, escaping to the greenwood, showing up at court, hanging his brother and his corrupt associates - didn't directly get him his rightful inheritance, although perhaps the poet was making the point that they weren't really his rightful lands in the first place, given that primogeniture dictated otherwise.
I know that there is some criticism that identifies Gamelyn as a figure of mockery, one with too much brawn and too little brain, but I personally think that he is likeable. He's a little bit like a clumsy teenager who doesn't always set about things the right way - case in point, murdering all of the revellers at a feast, or showing up in court when there's a price on his head - but, as illustrated by the scene with the franklin, his heart is in the right place and he shoulders his responsibilities when it comes down to it.
This text is very forward in its portrayal of violence against authority and how unjust these institutions can be. Having said that, despite the turmoil witnessed within the ranks of the nobility (between Gamelyn and his brothers) and the clergy/ laity conflicts, the power of the king is unquestioned and complete.
Loyalty and due respect to the desires of one’s natural superiors (such as the father early on and the king later) are ultimately rewarded in the text while it appears that one can batter clergy and magistrates about with impunity. There is a positive emphasis on ‘organic’ sources of power while man-made institutions are ignored or manipulated consistently.
On that point, I would ask if the notion of the king being appointed by God, and thus the highest religious power in the land, was prevalent in this period? If that is the case then it would support the notion of the previous paragraph.
Post a Comment